KARACHI, Sept 7: The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed two identical petitions of the federal government against a Sindh High Court judgment that set aside the decision of the Parliamentary Committee (PC) regarding non-confirmation of two additional SHC judges for permanent appointment.

The court also directed the authorities to issue a notification of confirmation of the additional judges as confirmed ones within one week.

A four-member bench of the apex court also directed the authorities to issue the notification in favour of Ghulam Sarwar Korai and Irfan Saadat Khan with effect from Sept 17, 2011 when four other incumbents, recommended by the Judicial Commission, were notified after their clearance by the PC “so that they shall have their respective seniority and other benefits in the High Court of Sindh”.

On June 11, the SHC had set aside the decision of the PC that had rejected the confirmation of the two additional SHC judges for permanent appointment. The SHC order had come on a petition of Abdur Rehman Farooq Pirzada, president of the Sindh High Court Bar Association, Sukkur chapter, who had challenged the parliamentary committee’s decision on Sept 9, 2011 pertaining to the rejection of the JC recommendation to confirm Justices Korai and Khan as permanent judges of the SHC. Tenure of the two judges had ended on Sept 24, 2011.

The four-member bench of the apex court was headed by Justice Anwar Zaheer Jamali with Justices Sarmad Jalal Osmany, Amir Hani Muslim and Muhammad Athar Saeed as its members.

The leave to appeal from the SHC judgment was filed by the Federation of Pakistan through the secretary of law, parliamentary affairs and justice, and Deputy Attorney General Ashique Raza represented the case of the federation on the issue.

Advocates Anwar Mansoor Khan, Makhdoom Ali Khan, Dr Muhammad Farough Naseem and Mazhar Ali B. Chohan appeared on behalf of the SHCBA that was cited a respondent in the government’s petition.

According to the SHCBA counsel, once the JC recommends the names of judges, the PC cannot overturn such recommendations except with proper reasons, which were absent in the instant case.

They submitted that the high court judges were appointed as additional judges prior to the 18th amendment and their names were included in the recommendations sent by the JC for confirmation.

The counsel submitted that the two judges were not confirmed by the committee, which also did not give any strong reason for not confirming them.

The court observed in its order: “After hearing the arguments of Mr Ashique Raza, learned Deputy Attorney General for the petitioner and Makhdoom Ali Khan and Dr. Muhammad Farough Naseem, learned Sr ASCs [Advocates of Supreme Court] on behalf of the respondents, for the reasons to be recorded later on separately, leave to appeal is refused and both these petitions are dismissed, with further direction to the petitioners to issue notification in terms of the impugned judgment within one week from, today and copy whereof shall be sent to the registrar, Supreme Court of Pakistan”.

The short order of the four-member bench further said: “It is clarified that the said notification shall be deemed to have been issued in favour of Ghulam Sarwar Korai and Irfan Sadat Khan with effect from 17.9.2011 when four other recommendees of the judicial commission in the same batch were notified after their clearance by the Parliamentary Committee, so that they shall have their respective seniority and other benefits in the High Court of Sindh.”

The bench also warned that in case the authorities concerned failed to issue the said notification in the stipulated time, “the matter shall be immediately fixed before the court for any further appropriate action against the concerned officials responsible of non-compliance of the above order”.

It may be recalled here that the SHC setting aside the impugned decision of the PC in respect of the two judges had observed that the PC purportedly relied on intelligence reports from the Inter-Services Intelligence and the Intelligence Bureau, which did not justify the committee’s refusal to accept the unanimous recommendations of the JC.